niryuu/sni-each-converted huggingface dataset:
CONTEXT: They get affected by lightning just like anyone else would be - they're still human (ok, metahuman). The lightning strike PLUS the dark matter released by the particle accelerator explosion is what turned Barry into the Flash and gave him access to the Speed Force. As we've seen before with other metas who harness electrical powers, Barry can still take an electrical hit and be hurt by it, and lightning is just a large electrical charge. So in summary, yes - if he's hit by lightning it's perfectly understandable that his heart might be stopped by it.  <sep>  Q: Why does lightning hit affects speedsters? A: As we've seen before with other metas who harness electrical powers, Barry can still take an electrical hit and be hurt by it, and lightning is just a large electrical charge  Q: How would an injured Flash be resuscitated if they were struck by lightening ? A: They get affected by lightning just like anyone else would be - they're still human (ok, metahuman  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: How many seasons of the Flash TV show are there?
Output: No
CONTEXT: The Avengers is an Initiative: a sanctioned team brought together to defend the world against threats beyond the scope of SHIELD and the world's governments. Captain America is the first Avenger not only because he was the first to be recruited (Thor doesn't even know about the Avengers until partway through the movie: even Stark was aware of their existence before then), but because the super-soldier program of the 1940's was a wartime pre-cursor to the Avengers program, albeit one that was stalled by espionage. Captain America was quite clearly the first member of the team to sign up to a government initiative to defend innocent life. Ruben Studdard was 25 when he won American Idol in the 2nd Series, and Kelly Clarkson was only 20 when she won the first series. We don't refer to Studdard as the first American Idol winner, do we?  <sep>  Q: Why do we say that Captain America is the first avenger?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: The Avengers is an Initiative: a sanctioned team brought together to defend the world against threats beyond the scope of SHIELD and the world's governments. Captain America is the first Avenger not only because he was the first to be recruited (Thor doesn't even know about the Avengers until partway through the movie: even Stark was aware of their existence before then), but because the super-soldier program of the 1940's was a wartime pre-cursor to the Avengers program, albeit one that was stalled by espionage. Captain America was quite clearly the first member of the team to sign up to a government initiative to defend innocent life. Ruben Studdard was 25 when he won American Idol in the 2nd Series, and Kelly Clarkson was only 20 when she won the first series. We don't refer to Studdard as the first American Idol winner, do we?  <sep>  Q: Why do we say that Captain America is the first avenger? A: because he was the first to be recruited  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: So, Thor was recruited after him even though he is older?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: He made that rock formation himself to catch fish. The arrangement of rocks into that shape is a traditional fishing technique called a fishing weir. Quite a few Native American tribes used this kind of fishing technique to catch freshwater fish. The rock formation forces the fish swimming downstream into a small area where they can't easily escape, and can be grabbed by the person fishing. From what I've read, it's actually not likely that a real fisherman would have used a weir in such a shallow stream; in those cases you could typically just grab the fish by hand as they swam in front of you. Nonetheless, it is a valid fishing technique in other cases.  <sep>  Q: Did someone arrange rocks in a U shape?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: He made that rock formation himself to catch fish. The arrangement of rocks into that shape is a traditional fishing technique called a fishing weir. Quite a few Native American tribes used this kind of fishing technique to catch freshwater fish. The rock formation forces the fish swimming downstream into a small area where they can't easily escape, and can be grabbed by the person fishing. From what I've read, it's actually not likely that a real fisherman would have used a weir in such a shallow stream; in those cases you could typically just grab the fish by hand as they swam in front of you. Nonetheless, it is a valid fishing technique in other cases.  <sep>  Q: Did someone arrange rocks in a U shape? A: Quite a few Native American tribes used this kind of fishing technique to catch freshwater fish  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What is the purpose of arranging the rocks this way?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: He made that rock formation himself to catch fish. The arrangement of rocks into that shape is a traditional fishing technique called a fishing weir. Quite a few Native American tribes used this kind of fishing technique to catch freshwater fish. The rock formation forces the fish swimming downstream into a small area where they can't easily escape, and can be grabbed by the person fishing. From what I've read, it's actually not likely that a real fisherman would have used a weir in such a shallow stream; in those cases you could typically just grab the fish by hand as they swam in front of you. Nonetheless, it is a valid fishing technique in other cases.  <sep>  Q: Was Leo in the Reverent?
Output: No
CONTEXT: He made that rock formation himself to catch fish. The arrangement of rocks into that shape is a traditional fishing technique called a fishing weir. Quite a few Native American tribes used this kind of fishing technique to catch freshwater fish. The rock formation forces the fish swimming downstream into a small area where they can't easily escape, and can be grabbed by the person fishing. From what I've read, it's actually not likely that a real fisherman would have used a weir in such a shallow stream; in those cases you could typically just grab the fish by hand as they swam in front of you. Nonetheless, it is a valid fishing technique in other cases.  <sep>  Q: Did someone arrange rocks in a U shape? A: Quite a few Native American tribes used this kind of fishing technique to catch freshwater fish  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What year did The Reverent come out?
Output: No
CONTEXT: He made that rock formation himself to catch fish. The arrangement of rocks into that shape is a traditional fishing technique called a fishing weir. Quite a few Native American tribes used this kind of fishing technique to catch freshwater fish. The rock formation forces the fish swimming downstream into a small area where they can't easily escape, and can be grabbed by the person fishing. From what I've read, it's actually not likely that a real fisherman would have used a weir in such a shallow stream; in those cases you could typically just grab the fish by hand as they swam in front of you. Nonetheless, it is a valid fishing technique in other cases.  <sep>  Q: Did someone arrange rocks in a U shape? A: Quite a few Native American tribes used this kind of fishing technique to catch freshwater fish  Q: What is the purpose of arranging the rocks this way? A: The rock formation forces the fish swimming downstream into a small area where they can't easily escape, and can be grabbed by the person fishing  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: How high do you have to make the formation?
Output: No
CONTEXT: As we see in Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (during the climactic fight between Darth Maul, Qui-Gon Jinn and Obi-Wan Kenobi) and Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (when dozens of Jedi storm the arena where Obi-Wan Kenobi, Anakin Skywalker and Padmé Amidala have been sentenced to death), Jedi have no qualms about killing those that are trying to kill them. In fact, we see that Obi-Wan Kenobi is referred to as General Kenobi in Star Wars films set after the events of the Clone Wars, so we can be reasonably sure that there is nothing prohibiting Jedi killing people in battle. However, at the point you are asking about in Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith, Count Dooku is an unarmed opponent and poses little to no further threat. The Jedi way would have been to arrest him, not murder him, as Anakin himself correctly says in the quote in the question.  <sep>  Q: In Star Wars, can a Jedi kill?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: As we see in Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (during the climactic fight between Darth Maul, Qui-Gon Jinn and Obi-Wan Kenobi) and Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (when dozens of Jedi storm the arena where Obi-Wan Kenobi, Anakin Skywalker and Padmé Amidala have been sentenced to death), Jedi have no qualms about killing those that are trying to kill them. In fact, we see that Obi-Wan Kenobi is referred to as General Kenobi in Star Wars films set after the events of the Clone Wars, so we can be reasonably sure that there is nothing prohibiting Jedi killing people in battle. However, at the point you are asking about in Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith, Count Dooku is an unarmed opponent and poses little to no further threat. The Jedi way would have been to arrest him, not murder him, as Anakin himself correctly says in the quote in the question.  <sep>  Q: In Star Wars, can a Jedi kill? A: Jedi have no qualms about killing those that are trying to kill them  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Is it a plot device?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: As we see in Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (during the climactic fight between Darth Maul, Qui-Gon Jinn and Obi-Wan Kenobi) and Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (when dozens of Jedi storm the arena where Obi-Wan Kenobi, Anakin Skywalker and Padmé Amidala have been sentenced to death), Jedi have no qualms about killing those that are trying to kill them. In fact, we see that Obi-Wan Kenobi is referred to as General Kenobi in Star Wars films set after the events of the Clone Wars, so we can be reasonably sure that there is nothing prohibiting Jedi killing people in battle. However, at the point you are asking about in Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith, Count Dooku is an unarmed opponent and poses little to no further threat. The Jedi way would have been to arrest him, not murder him, as Anakin himself correctly says in the quote in the question.  <sep>  Q: In Star Wars, can a Jedi kill? A: Jedi have no qualms about killing those that are trying to kill them  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Do jedis often kill their opponent?
Output: No
CONTEXT: As we see in Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (during the climactic fight between Darth Maul, Qui-Gon Jinn and Obi-Wan Kenobi) and Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (when dozens of Jedi storm the arena where Obi-Wan Kenobi, Anakin Skywalker and Padmé Amidala have been sentenced to death), Jedi have no qualms about killing those that are trying to kill them. In fact, we see that Obi-Wan Kenobi is referred to as General Kenobi in Star Wars films set after the events of the Clone Wars, so we can be reasonably sure that there is nothing prohibiting Jedi killing people in battle. However, at the point you are asking about in Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith, Count Dooku is an unarmed opponent and poses little to no further threat. The Jedi way would have been to arrest him, not murder him, as Anakin himself correctly says in the quote in the question.  <sep>  Q: In Star Wars, can a Jedi kill? A: Jedi have no qualms about killing those that are trying to kill them  Q: Is it a plot device? A: Obi-Wan Kenobi is referred to as General Kenobi in Star Wars films set after the events of the Clone Wars, so we can be reasonably sure that there is nothing prohibiting Jedi killing people in battle  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Who is killed in the first movie?
Output: No
CONTEXT: She doesn't want to torture Sherlock, she wants to play with him. Specifically, she wants him to play with her. At least, that's what the childhood version of herself wants and it manifests in modern day as the torturous puzzling she sets up for Sherlock. Eurus lacks human emotion and, thus, doesn't see what she does as torturing her brother.  <sep>  Q: What is Eurus's motive in the final problem
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: She doesn't want to torture Sherlock, she wants to play with him. Specifically, she wants him to play with her. At least, that's what the childhood version of herself wants and it manifests in modern day as the torturous puzzling she sets up for Sherlock. Eurus lacks human emotion and, thus, doesn't see what she does as torturing her brother.  <sep>  Q: What is Eurus's motive in the final problem A: She doesn't want to torture Sherlock, she wants to play with him. Specifically, she wants him to play with her  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Were they friends as children?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: She doesn't want to torture Sherlock, she wants to play with him. Specifically, she wants him to play with her. At least, that's what the childhood version of herself wants and it manifests in modern day as the torturous puzzling she sets up for Sherlock. Eurus lacks human emotion and, thus, doesn't see what she does as torturing her brother.  <sep>  Q: What is Eurus's motive in the final problem A: She doesn't want to torture Sherlock, she wants to play with him. Specifically, she wants him to play with her  Q: Were they friends as children? A: that's what the childhood version of herself wants and it manifests in modern day as the torturous puzzling she sets up for Sherlock  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Does she kill redbeard?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: She doesn't want to torture Sherlock, she wants to play with him. Specifically, she wants him to play with her. At least, that's what the childhood version of herself wants and it manifests in modern day as the torturous puzzling she sets up for Sherlock. Eurus lacks human emotion and, thus, doesn't see what she does as torturing her brother.  <sep>  Q: What is Eurus's motive in the final problem A: She doesn't want to torture Sherlock, she wants to play with him. Specifically, she wants him to play with her  Q: Were they friends as children? A: that's what the childhood version of herself wants and it manifests in modern day as the torturous puzzling she sets up for Sherlock  Q: Does she kill redbeard? A: Eurus lacks human emotion and, thus, doesn't see what she does as torturing her brother  Q: Why does she want to torture him after 20+ years. A: Eurus lacks human emotion and, thus, doesn't see what she does as torturing her brother  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What season of Sherlock does all of this take place?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: She doesn't want to torture Sherlock, she wants to play with him. Specifically, she wants him to play with her. At least, that's what the childhood version of herself wants and it manifests in modern day as the torturous puzzling she sets up for Sherlock. Eurus lacks human emotion and, thus, doesn't see what she does as torturing her brother.  <sep>  Q: What is Eurus's motive in the final problem A: She doesn't want to torture Sherlock, she wants to play with him. Specifically, she wants him to play with her  Q: Were they friends as children? A: that's what the childhood version of herself wants and it manifests in modern day as the torturous puzzling she sets up for Sherlock  Q: Does she kill redbeard? A: Eurus lacks human emotion and, thus, doesn't see what she does as torturing her brother  Q: Why does she want to torture him after 20+ years. A: Eurus lacks human emotion and, thus, doesn't see what she does as torturing her brother  Q: What season of Sherlock does all of this take place? A: s him to play with her. At least, that's what the childhood version of herself wants and it manifests in modern day as the torturous puzzling she sets up for Sherlock. Eurus lacks human e  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What does she want to be a part of?
Output: No
CONTEXT: Spider-Man: Homecoming is following the Captain America: Civil War. I've seen the same trailer - and the clip with Spidey holding Cap's shield seems to be lifted straight from the CA:CW movie during the airport fight. Later in the trailer (or in another trailer), Peter is boasting to his friend about meeting Iron Man and the Avengers, and how he stole Captain America's shield from him.  <sep>  Q: Why did I see Spider-Man with Captain America's shield in his hand? A: he stole Captain America's shield from him  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: When did he do that?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Spider-Man: Homecoming is following the Captain America: Civil War. I've seen the same trailer - and the clip with Spidey holding Cap's shield seems to be lifted straight from the CA:CW movie during the airport fight. Later in the trailer (or in another trailer), Peter is boasting to his friend about meeting Iron Man and the Avengers, and how he stole Captain America's shield from him.  <sep>  Q: Why did I see Spider-Man with Captain America's shield in his hand? A: he stole Captain America's shield from him  Q: When did he do that? A: during the airport fight  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Was this in a different movie?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Spider-Man: Homecoming is following the Captain America: Civil War. I've seen the same trailer - and the clip with Spidey holding Cap's shield seems to be lifted straight from the CA:CW movie during the airport fight. Later in the trailer (or in another trailer), Peter is boasting to his friend about meeting Iron Man and the Avengers, and how he stole Captain America's shield from him.  <sep>  Q: Why did I see Spider-Man with Captain America's shield in his hand? A: he stole Captain America's shield from him  Q: When did he do that? A: during the airport fight  Q: Was this in a different movie? A: Captain America: Civil War  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Do I need to watch that movie to understand the new Spiderman movie?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Spider-Man: Homecoming is following the Captain America: Civil War. I've seen the same trailer - and the clip with Spidey holding Cap's shield seems to be lifted straight from the CA:CW movie during the airport fight. Later in the trailer (or in another trailer), Peter is boasting to his friend about meeting Iron Man and the Avengers, and how he stole Captain America's shield from him.  <sep>  Q: Why did I see Spider-Man with Captain America's shield in his hand? A: he stole Captain America's shield from him  Q: When did he do that? A: during the airport fight  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Does captain America no longer need his shield?
Output: No
CONTEXT: Yes, multiple dogs can talk. Another one that has in multiple episodes is Brian's gay cousin Jasper in L.A., whom has a full time job and even gay married a human. Most animals have a variation in how much they can talk and who can understand them, because Family Guy runs on the rule of funny.  <sep>  Q: How many dogs can talk in Family Guy A: multiple dogs can talk. Another one that has in multiple episodes is Brian's gay cousin Jasper in L.A., whom has a full time job and even gay married a human  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Who is Brian's cousin
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Yes, multiple dogs can talk. Another one that has in multiple episodes is Brian's gay cousin Jasper in L.A., whom has a full time job and even gay married a human. Most animals have a variation in how much they can talk and who can understand them, because Family Guy runs on the rule of funny.  <sep>  Q: How many dogs can talk in Family Guy A: multiple dogs can talk. Another one that has in multiple episodes is Brian's gay cousin Jasper in L.A., whom has a full time job and even gay married a human  Q: Who is Brian's cousin A: Jasper in L.A  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Right, who did he marry
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Yes, multiple dogs can talk. Another one that has in multiple episodes is Brian's gay cousin Jasper in L.A., whom has a full time job and even gay married a human. Most animals have a variation in how much they can talk and who can understand them, because Family Guy runs on the rule of funny.  <sep>  Q: How many dogs can talk in Family Guy A: multiple dogs can talk. Another one that has in multiple episodes is Brian's gay cousin Jasper in L.A., whom has a full time job and even gay married a human  Q: Who is Brian's cousin A: Jasper in L.A  Q: Right, who did he marry A: married a human  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Any other animals talk in Family Guy
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Yes, multiple dogs can talk. Another one that has in multiple episodes is Brian's gay cousin Jasper in L.A., whom has a full time job and even gay married a human. Most animals have a variation in how much they can talk and who can understand them, because Family Guy runs on the rule of funny.  <sep>  Q: How many dogs can talk in Family Guy A: multiple dogs can talk. Another one that has in multiple episodes is Brian's gay cousin Jasper in L.A., whom has a full time job and even gay married a human  Q: Who is Brian's cousin A: Jasper in L.A  Q: Right, who did he marry A: married a human  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Isn't Vinny the other dog in Life of Brian episode?
Output: No
CONTEXT: I'm afraid you completely misunderstood a lot of the movie. At the start of the movie, Hal is already dead (killed himself in prison). Those scenes with Hal (mostly in New York) were all flashbacks. The present is with sister in San Francisco. Jasmine meets Dwight at a party in San Francisco. This is long after Hal killed himself. But to your question: "Why did Jasmine arrest Hal?" It was purely a spur of the moment, revenge thing. Hal had just told Jasmine that he was in love with this French girl and was going to leave her. And almost immediately, Jasmine calls the FBI (or rather calls someone to get the FBI's number).  <sep>  Q: Why did Jasmine arrest Hal?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: I'm afraid you completely misunderstood a lot of the movie. At the start of the movie, Hal is already dead (killed himself in prison). Those scenes with Hal (mostly in New York) were all flashbacks. The present is with sister in San Francisco. Jasmine meets Dwight at a party in San Francisco. This is long after Hal killed himself. But to your question: "Why did Jasmine arrest Hal?" It was purely a spur of the moment, revenge thing. Hal had just told Jasmine that he was in love with this French girl and was going to leave her. And almost immediately, Jasmine calls the FBI (or rather calls someone to get the FBI's number).  <sep>  Q: Why did Jasmine arrest Hal? A: It was purely a spur of the moment, revenge thing  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Who did Jasmine sleep with?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: I'm afraid you completely misunderstood a lot of the movie. At the start of the movie, Hal is already dead (killed himself in prison). Those scenes with Hal (mostly in New York) were all flashbacks. The present is with sister in San Francisco. Jasmine meets Dwight at a party in San Francisco. This is long after Hal killed himself. But to your question: "Why did Jasmine arrest Hal?" It was purely a spur of the moment, revenge thing. Hal had just told Jasmine that he was in love with this French girl and was going to leave her. And almost immediately, Jasmine calls the FBI (or rather calls someone to get the FBI's number).  <sep>  Q: Why did Jasmine arrest Hal? A: It was purely a spur of the moment, revenge thing  Q: Who did Jasmine sleep with? A: Dwight  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Who does she call?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: I'm afraid you completely misunderstood a lot of the movie. At the start of the movie, Hal is already dead (killed himself in prison). Those scenes with Hal (mostly in New York) were all flashbacks. The present is with sister in San Francisco. Jasmine meets Dwight at a party in San Francisco. This is long after Hal killed himself. But to your question: "Why did Jasmine arrest Hal?" It was purely a spur of the moment, revenge thing. Hal had just told Jasmine that he was in love with this French girl and was going to leave her. And almost immediately, Jasmine calls the FBI (or rather calls someone to get the FBI's number).  <sep>  Q: Why did Jasmine arrest Hal? A: It was purely a spur of the moment, revenge thing  Q: Who did Jasmine sleep with? A: Dwight  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why did she come to Hal?
Output: No
CONTEXT: I'm afraid you completely misunderstood a lot of the movie. At the start of the movie, Hal is already dead (killed himself in prison). Those scenes with Hal (mostly in New York) were all flashbacks. The present is with sister in San Francisco. Jasmine meets Dwight at a party in San Francisco. This is long after Hal killed himself. But to your question: "Why did Jasmine arrest Hal?" It was purely a spur of the moment, revenge thing. Hal had just told Jasmine that he was in love with this French girl and was going to leave her. And almost immediately, Jasmine calls the FBI (or rather calls someone to get the FBI's number).  <sep>  Q: Why did Jasmine arrest Hal? A: It was purely a spur of the moment, revenge thing  Q: Who did Jasmine sleep with? A: Dwight  Q: Who does she call? A: Jasmine calls the FBI (or rather calls someone to get the FBI's number  Q: Why did Jasmine arrest Hal? A: It was purely a spur of the moment, revenge thing. Hal had just told Jasmine that he was in love with this French girl and was going to leave her  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What age group was the girl that Hal had a relationship with?
Output: No
CONTEXT: I'm afraid you completely misunderstood a lot of the movie. At the start of the movie, Hal is already dead (killed himself in prison). Those scenes with Hal (mostly in New York) were all flashbacks. The present is with sister in San Francisco. Jasmine meets Dwight at a party in San Francisco. This is long after Hal killed himself. But to your question: "Why did Jasmine arrest Hal?" It was purely a spur of the moment, revenge thing. Hal had just told Jasmine that he was in love with this French girl and was going to leave her. And almost immediately, Jasmine calls the FBI (or rather calls someone to get the FBI's number).  <sep>  Q: Why did Jasmine arrest Hal? A: It was purely a spur of the moment, revenge thing  Q: Who did Jasmine sleep with? A: Dwight  Q: Who does she call? A: Jasmine calls the FBI (or rather calls someone to get the FBI's number  Q: Why did Jasmine arrest Hal? A: It was purely a spur of the moment, revenge thing. Hal had just told Jasmine that he was in love with this French girl and was going to leave her  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What is the name of the movie?
Output: No
CONTEXT: I'm afraid you completely misunderstood a lot of the movie. At the start of the movie, Hal is already dead (killed himself in prison). Those scenes with Hal (mostly in New York) were all flashbacks. The present is with sister in San Francisco. Jasmine meets Dwight at a party in San Francisco. This is long after Hal killed himself. But to your question: "Why did Jasmine arrest Hal?" It was purely a spur of the moment, revenge thing. Hal had just told Jasmine that he was in love with this French girl and was going to leave her. And almost immediately, Jasmine calls the FBI (or rather calls someone to get the FBI's number).  <sep>  Q: Why did Jasmine arrest Hal? A: Hal had just told Jasmine that he was in love with this French girl and was going to leave her  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Who did Jasmine sleep with?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: I'm afraid you completely misunderstood a lot of the movie. At the start of the movie, Hal is already dead (killed himself in prison). Those scenes with Hal (mostly in New York) were all flashbacks. The present is with sister in San Francisco. Jasmine meets Dwight at a party in San Francisco. This is long after Hal killed himself. But to your question: "Why did Jasmine arrest Hal?" It was purely a spur of the moment, revenge thing. Hal had just told Jasmine that he was in love with this French girl and was going to leave her. And almost immediately, Jasmine calls the FBI (or rather calls someone to get the FBI's number).  <sep>  Q: Why did Jasmine arrest Hal? A: Hal had just told Jasmine that he was in love with this French girl and was going to leave her  Q: Who did Jasmine sleep with? A: Dwight  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Who did Jasmine call about Hal?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: I'm afraid you completely misunderstood a lot of the movie. At the start of the movie, Hal is already dead (killed himself in prison). Those scenes with Hal (mostly in New York) were all flashbacks. The present is with sister in San Francisco. Jasmine meets Dwight at a party in San Francisco. This is long after Hal killed himself. But to your question: "Why did Jasmine arrest Hal?" It was purely a spur of the moment, revenge thing. Hal had just told Jasmine that he was in love with this French girl and was going to leave her. And almost immediately, Jasmine calls the FBI (or rather calls someone to get the FBI's number).  <sep>  Q: Why did Jasmine arrest Hal? A: Hal had just told Jasmine that he was in love with this French girl and was going to leave her  Q: Who did Jasmine sleep with? A: Dwight  Q: Who did Jasmine call about Hal? A: Jasmine calls the FBI  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Who did she accuse Hal of sleeping with?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: I'm afraid you completely misunderstood a lot of the movie. At the start of the movie, Hal is already dead (killed himself in prison). Those scenes with Hal (mostly in New York) were all flashbacks. The present is with sister in San Francisco. Jasmine meets Dwight at a party in San Francisco. This is long after Hal killed himself. But to your question: "Why did Jasmine arrest Hal?" It was purely a spur of the moment, revenge thing. Hal had just told Jasmine that he was in love with this French girl and was going to leave her. And almost immediately, Jasmine calls the FBI (or rather calls someone to get the FBI's number).  <sep>  Q: Why did Jasmine arrest Hal? A: Hal had just told Jasmine that he was in love with this French girl and was going to leave her  Q: Who did Jasmine sleep with? A: Dwight  Q: Who did Jasmine call about Hal? A: Jasmine calls the FBI  Q: Who did she accuse Hal of sleeping with? A: this French girl  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What do the FBI do to Hal?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: I'm afraid you completely misunderstood a lot of the movie. At the start of the movie, Hal is already dead (killed himself in prison). Those scenes with Hal (mostly in New York) were all flashbacks. The present is with sister in San Francisco. Jasmine meets Dwight at a party in San Francisco. This is long after Hal killed himself. But to your question: "Why did Jasmine arrest Hal?" It was purely a spur of the moment, revenge thing. Hal had just told Jasmine that he was in love with this French girl and was going to leave her. And almost immediately, Jasmine calls the FBI (or rather calls someone to get the FBI's number).  <sep>  Q: Why did Jasmine arrest Hal? A: Hal had just told Jasmine that he was in love with this French girl and was going to leave her  Q: Who did Jasmine sleep with? A: Dwight  Q: Who did Jasmine call about Hal? A: Jasmine calls the FBI  Q: Who did she accuse Hal of sleeping with? A: this French girl  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Who starred in this movie?
Output: No
CONTEXT: The money belonged to Barr so it had his fingerprints on it. The gun was also Barr's as was the van. The whole point of Charlie's actions were to frame Barr for the killing. He had befriended Barr to get close to him and was close enough to be able to drug him and take the various pieces of property away from Barr's house and to return them with incriminating evidence without Barr realising he'd been set up. If I remember correctly the movie shows a jar filled with coins on Barr's desk. Presumably Charlie just took one of these to leave that final piece of incriminating evidence in the multi-story car park.  <sep>  Q: How did Charlie get Barr Finger prints?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: The money belonged to Barr so it had his fingerprints on it. The gun was also Barr's as was the van. The whole point of Charlie's actions were to frame Barr for the killing. He had befriended Barr to get close to him and was close enough to be able to drug him and take the various pieces of property away from Barr's house and to return them with incriminating evidence without Barr realising he'd been set up. If I remember correctly the movie shows a jar filled with coins on Barr's desk. Presumably Charlie just took one of these to leave that final piece of incriminating evidence in the multi-story car park.  <sep>  Q: How did Charlie get Barr Finger prints? A: Charlie just took one of these to leave that final piece of incriminating evidence  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What did Charlie take one of?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: The money belonged to Barr so it had his fingerprints on it. The gun was also Barr's as was the van. The whole point of Charlie's actions were to frame Barr for the killing. He had befriended Barr to get close to him and was close enough to be able to drug him and take the various pieces of property away from Barr's house and to return them with incriminating evidence without Barr realising he'd been set up. If I remember correctly the movie shows a jar filled with coins on Barr's desk. Presumably Charlie just took one of these to leave that final piece of incriminating evidence in the multi-story car park.  <sep>  Q: How did Charlie get Barr Finger prints? A: Charlie just took one of these to leave that final piece of incriminating evidence  Q: What did Charlie take one of? A: If I remember correctly the movie shows a jar filled with coins on Barr's desk. Presumably Charlie just took one of these  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why did Charlie kill four people?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: The money belonged to Barr so it had his fingerprints on it. The gun was also Barr's as was the van. The whole point of Charlie's actions were to frame Barr for the killing. He had befriended Barr to get close to him and was close enough to be able to drug him and take the various pieces of property away from Barr's house and to return them with incriminating evidence without Barr realising he'd been set up. If I remember correctly the movie shows a jar filled with coins on Barr's desk. Presumably Charlie just took one of these to leave that final piece of incriminating evidence in the multi-story car park.  <sep>  Q: How did Charlie get Barr Finger prints? A: Charlie just took one of these to leave that final piece of incriminating evidence  Q: What did Charlie take one of? A: If I remember correctly the movie shows a jar filled with coins on Barr's desk. Presumably Charlie just took one of these  Q: Why did Charlie kill four people? A: The whole point of Charlie's actions were to frame Barr for the killing  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: I see, Why did charlie want to frame Barr?
Output: No
CONTEXT: The money belonged to Barr so it had his fingerprints on it. The gun was also Barr's as was the van. The whole point of Charlie's actions were to frame Barr for the killing. He had befriended Barr to get close to him and was close enough to be able to drug him and take the various pieces of property away from Barr's house and to return them with incriminating evidence without Barr realising he'd been set up. If I remember correctly the movie shows a jar filled with coins on Barr's desk. Presumably Charlie just took one of these to leave that final piece of incriminating evidence in the multi-story car park.  <sep>  Q: How did Charlie get Barr Finger prints? A: Charlie just took one of these to leave that final piece of incriminating evidence  Q: What did Charlie take one of? A: If I remember correctly the movie shows a jar filled with coins on Barr's desk. Presumably Charlie just took one of these  Q: Why did Charlie kill four people? A: The whole point of Charlie's actions were to frame Barr for the killing  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What is the movie titled?
Output: No
CONTEXT: The money belonged to Barr so it had his fingerprints on it. The gun was also Barr's as was the van. The whole point of Charlie's actions were to frame Barr for the killing. He had befriended Barr to get close to him and was close enough to be able to drug him and take the various pieces of property away from Barr's house and to return them with incriminating evidence without Barr realising he'd been set up. If I remember correctly the movie shows a jar filled with coins on Barr's desk. Presumably Charlie just took one of these to leave that final piece of incriminating evidence in the multi-story car park.  <sep>  Q: How did Charlie get Barr Finger prints? A: The money belonged to Barr so it had his fingerprints on it  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: How does that explain the scene with the coin?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: The money belonged to Barr so it had his fingerprints on it. The gun was also Barr's as was the van. The whole point of Charlie's actions were to frame Barr for the killing. He had befriended Barr to get close to him and was close enough to be able to drug him and take the various pieces of property away from Barr's house and to return them with incriminating evidence without Barr realising he'd been set up. If I remember correctly the movie shows a jar filled with coins on Barr's desk. Presumably Charlie just took one of these to leave that final piece of incriminating evidence in the multi-story car park.  <sep>  Q: How did Charlie get Barr Finger prints? A: The money belonged to Barr so it had his fingerprints on it  Q: How does that explain the scene with the coin? A: If I remember correctly the movie shows a jar filled with coins on Barr's desk  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Did he use the coin to get the prints?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: The money belonged to Barr so it had his fingerprints on it. The gun was also Barr's as was the van. The whole point of Charlie's actions were to frame Barr for the killing. He had befriended Barr to get close to him and was close enough to be able to drug him and take the various pieces of property away from Barr's house and to return them with incriminating evidence without Barr realising he'd been set up. If I remember correctly the movie shows a jar filled with coins on Barr's desk. Presumably Charlie just took one of these to leave that final piece of incriminating evidence in the multi-story car park.  <sep>  Q: How did Charlie get Barr Finger prints? A: The money belonged to Barr so it had his fingerprints on it  Q: How does that explain the scene with the coin? A: If I remember correctly the movie shows a jar filled with coins on Barr's desk  Q: Did he use the coin to get the prints? A: Presumably Charlie just took one of these to leave that final piece of incriminating evidence in the multi-story car park  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Oh right I see, what about the scene in general, can you explain more?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: The money belonged to Barr so it had his fingerprints on it. The gun was also Barr's as was the van. The whole point of Charlie's actions were to frame Barr for the killing. He had befriended Barr to get close to him and was close enough to be able to drug him and take the various pieces of property away from Barr's house and to return them with incriminating evidence without Barr realising he'd been set up. If I remember correctly the movie shows a jar filled with coins on Barr's desk. Presumably Charlie just took one of these to leave that final piece of incriminating evidence in the multi-story car park.  <sep>  Q: How did Charlie get Barr Finger prints? A: The money belonged to Barr so it had his fingerprints on it  Q: How does that explain the scene with the coin? A: If I remember correctly the movie shows a jar filled with coins on Barr's desk  Q: Did he use the coin to get the prints? A: Presumably Charlie just took one of these to leave that final piece of incriminating evidence in the multi-story car park  Q: Oh right I see, what about the scene in general, can you explain more? A: He had befriended Barr to get close to him and was close enough to be able to drug him and take the various pieces of property away from Barr's house  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Did Bars not suspect anything was wrong?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: The money belonged to Barr so it had his fingerprints on it. The gun was also Barr's as was the van. The whole point of Charlie's actions were to frame Barr for the killing. He had befriended Barr to get close to him and was close enough to be able to drug him and take the various pieces of property away from Barr's house and to return them with incriminating evidence without Barr realising he'd been set up. If I remember correctly the movie shows a jar filled with coins on Barr's desk. Presumably Charlie just took one of these to leave that final piece of incriminating evidence in the multi-story car park.  <sep>  Q: How did Charlie get Barr Finger prints? A: The money belonged to Barr so it had his fingerprints on it  Q: How does that explain the scene with the coin? A: If I remember correctly the movie shows a jar filled with coins on Barr's desk  Q: Did he use the coin to get the prints? A: Presumably Charlie just took one of these to leave that final piece of incriminating evidence in the multi-story car park  Q: Oh right I see, what about the scene in general, can you explain more? A: He had befriended Barr to get close to him and was close enough to be able to drug him and take the various pieces of property away from Barr's house  Q: Did Bars not suspect anything was wrong? A: incriminating evidence without Barr realising he'd been set up  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Do you have any other facts?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Maybe it's because with origami you can go from a simple non living material such as a simple sheet of paper and mold it into something that is a representation of a living thing. Although this might never get a true answer I like to think it has something to do with the artificial creation of something representing life or dreams. When thinking further along these lines it strikes me that indeed the origami are all artificial representations of something living, yet a unicorn can never be really alive which can then be some sort of an origami analogy for Deckard = Replicant.  <sep>  Q: What does the origami represent in Blade Runner?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Maybe it's because with origami you can go from a simple non living material such as a simple sheet of paper and mold it into something that is a representation of a living thing. Although this might never get a true answer I like to think it has something to do with the artificial creation of something representing life or dreams. When thinking further along these lines it strikes me that indeed the origami are all artificial representations of something living, yet a unicorn can never be really alive which can then be some sort of an origami analogy for Deckard = Replicant.  <sep>  Q: What does the origami represent in Blade Runner? A: the origami are all artificial representations of something living  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What types of origami does he make?
Output: No
CONTEXT: Maybe it's because with origami you can go from a simple non living material such as a simple sheet of paper and mold it into something that is a representation of a living thing. Although this might never get a true answer I like to think it has something to do with the artificial creation of something representing life or dreams. When thinking further along these lines it strikes me that indeed the origami are all artificial representations of something living, yet a unicorn can never be really alive which can then be some sort of an origami analogy for Deckard = Replicant.  <sep>  Q: What does the origami represent in Blade Runner? A: the origami are all artificial representations of something living  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Who is the main actor in Blade Runner?
Output: No
CONTEXT: For the same reason that Jeff doesn't immediately call the police with his suspicions: fear that if Thorwald realizes he has been made by an outside observer, he will dispose of all the evidence and escape without prosecution... Lisa is buying more time by being taken under arrest, and the event was intended to appease Thorwald to some extent. He was already making mistakes (retaining his wife's wedding ring due to sentimentality), and Lisa was clinging onto the thought that their plan was not yet foiled. The arrest itself was actually a means of getting Lisa safely out of the apartment, and of getting the wedding ring (as evidence) into the hands of the police.  <sep>  Q: Why didn't Lisa tell the truth about Thorwald to the police?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: For the same reason that Jeff doesn't immediately call the police with his suspicions: fear that if Thorwald realizes he has been made by an outside observer, he will dispose of all the evidence and escape without prosecution... Lisa is buying more time by being taken under arrest, and the event was intended to appease Thorwald to some extent. He was already making mistakes (retaining his wife's wedding ring due to sentimentality), and Lisa was clinging onto the thought that their plan was not yet foiled. The arrest itself was actually a means of getting Lisa safely out of the apartment, and of getting the wedding ring (as evidence) into the hands of the police.  <sep>  Q: Why didn't Lisa tell the truth about Thorwald to the police? A: fear that if Thorwald realizes he has been made by an outside observer, he will dispose of all the evidence and escape without prosecution  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why did she get herself arrested?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: For the same reason that Jeff doesn't immediately call the police with his suspicions: fear that if Thorwald realizes he has been made by an outside observer, he will dispose of all the evidence and escape without prosecution... Lisa is buying more time by being taken under arrest, and the event was intended to appease Thorwald to some extent. He was already making mistakes (retaining his wife's wedding ring due to sentimentality), and Lisa was clinging onto the thought that their plan was not yet foiled. The arrest itself was actually a means of getting Lisa safely out of the apartment, and of getting the wedding ring (as evidence) into the hands of the police.  <sep>  Q: Why didn't Lisa tell the truth about Thorwald to the police? A: fear that if Thorwald realizes he has been made by an outside observer, he will dispose of all the evidence and escape without prosecution  Q: Why did she get herself arrested? A: Lisa is buying more time by being taken under arrest  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Who actually made this movie?
Output: No
CONTEXT: For the same reason that Jeff doesn't immediately call the police with his suspicions: fear that if Thorwald realizes he has been made by an outside observer, he will dispose of all the evidence and escape without prosecution... Lisa is buying more time by being taken under arrest, and the event was intended to appease Thorwald to some extent. He was already making mistakes (retaining his wife's wedding ring due to sentimentality), and Lisa was clinging onto the thought that their plan was not yet foiled. The arrest itself was actually a means of getting Lisa safely out of the apartment, and of getting the wedding ring (as evidence) into the hands of the police.  <sep>  Q: Why didn't Lisa tell the truth about Thorwald to the police? A: fear that if Thorwald realizes he has been made by an outside observer, he will dispose of all the evidence and escape without prosecution  Q: Why did she get herself arrested? A: Lisa is buying more time by being taken under arrest  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Who played the character of Lisa?
Output: No
CONTEXT: For the same reason that Jeff doesn't immediately call the police with his suspicions: fear that if Thorwald realizes he has been made by an outside observer, he will dispose of all the evidence and escape without prosecution... Lisa is buying more time by being taken under arrest, and the event was intended to appease Thorwald to some extent. He was already making mistakes (retaining his wife's wedding ring due to sentimentality), and Lisa was clinging onto the thought that their plan was not yet foiled. The arrest itself was actually a means of getting Lisa safely out of the apartment, and of getting the wedding ring (as evidence) into the hands of the police.  <sep>  Q: Why didn't Lisa tell the truth about Thorwald to the police? A: fear that if Thorwald realizes he has been made by an outside observer, he will dispose of all the evidence and escape without prosecution  Q: Why did she get herself arrested? A: Lisa is buying more time by being taken under arrest  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Who arrived at Thorwald's home?
Output: No